Canada seeks to buy Long Range Precision Rockets (probably US MLRS or HIMARS)

[Furniture]

1:50, they contain the fire control electronics. They're integral to the launcher not the pod.

It seems like a product of the GWOT (which it is), so that makes sense. Back in the GWOT, we weren't deleting grid squares with rockets, we wanted precision fires on demand.

In the current context, I see why they are pivoting to more firepower in the same footprint.

 

[FJAG]

1:50, they contain the fire control electronics. They're integral to the launcher not the pod.

That still looks like wasted space. That said I'm not sure if one could up the load on the truck and still have functional crane/loader/launcher frame that could handle two pods and fit in a C-130 . . . or if its even worth the squeeze for doubling the load considering its manner of tactical employment.

 

[FJAG]

It seems like a product of the GWOT (which it is), so that makes sense. Back in the GWOT, we weren't deleting grid squares with rockets, we wanted precision fires on demand.

In the current context, I see why they are pivoting to more firepower in the same footprint.

The trucks and launchers are relatively cheap compared to the ammo. I think if I had the choice of a HIMARS with double the pod capacity or two launchers with one pod each, I think I'd opt for creating regiments with more launchers or more regiments. I like redundancy.

 

[markppcli]

It seems like a product of the GWOT (which it is), so that makes sense. Back in the GWOT, we weren't deleting grid squares with rockets, we wanted precision fires on demand.

In the current context, I see why they are pivoting to more firepower in the same footprint.

Not really - its development is a direct result of Gulf War 1 where M270s were to slow to be in the first wave of troops deployed. The prototypes were out in 1996, ATACMs in 1998, delivery was in 2005 but in no way was it built for the GWOT.

That still looks like wasted space. That said I'm not sure if one could up the load on the truck and still have functional crane/loader/launcher frame that could handle two pods and fit in a C-130 . . . or if its even worth the squeeze for doubling the load considering its manner of tactical employment.

Its going to need fire control systems somewhere, either in the cab, or on the outside. Needs to be reasonablly accessible for repair as well.

 

[Furniture]

Not really - its development is a direct result of Gulf War 1 where M270s were to slow to be in the first wave of troops deployed. The prototypes were out in 1996, ATACMs in 1998, delivery was in 2005 but in no way was it built for the GWOT.

Fair... not GWOT, but the same mentality. Precision over volume.

There is no world in which the pod needed sponsons for FCS, in which the FCS couldn't have been mounted in the cab. The single pod was entirely a function of the 90s-20s obsession with precision over volume.

 

[markppcli]

Fair... not GWOT, but the same mentality. Precision over volume.

There is no world in which the pod needed sponsons for FCS, in which the FCS couldn't have been mounted in the cab. The single pod was entirely a function of the 90s-20s obsession with precision over volume.

As I explained the pod doesnt have sponsons. Its the rack that does. The defining factor isnt precision vs volume its about getting it to the wae zone. Tbats its whole design philosophy. Korean kit doesnt have that issue.

 

[Furniture]

As I explained the pod doesnt have sponsons. Its the rack that does. The defining factor isnt precision vs volume its about getting it to the wae zone. Tbats its whole design philosophy. Korean kit doesnt have that issue.

And apparently the new LM kit doesn't either... So either technology has shifted massively in the last couple of years, or LM has realized massed fire matters now.

I'm sure you're more of an expert on FCS and all things artillery than I am, but it seems pretty odd that LM is now magically making a solution that puts more rockets on a truck, after the world has seen massed fires be a thing again... But I'm sure that's totally unrelated to the war in Ukraine, and is just a new technological advancement in rocket launchers...

 

[markppcli]

And apparently the new LM kit doesn't either... So either technology has shifted massively in the last couple of years, or LM has realized massed fire matters now.

I'm sure you're more of an expert on FCS and all things artillery than I am, but it seems pretty odd that LM is now magically making a solution that puts more rockets on a truck, after the world has seen massed fires be a thing again... But I'm sure that's totally unrelated to the war in Ukraine, and is just a new technological advancement in rocket launchers...

Perhaps its because their potential customers dont place as high an emphasis on expeditionary operations, as stated that was the entire reason they build HIMARS. And yes, shockingly technology has changed from 1998 to 2026. So FCS gets smaller, more rockets available. However suggesting Ukraine is proving mass fires are more relevant than the conflict that defined the building of HIMARs, the gulf war, would be erroneous. If anything Ukraine has more examples of single gun engagements of targets with direct to crew video feed for correction - so quite the opposite.

 

[Furniture]

Perhaps its because their potential customers dont place as high an emphasis on expeditionary operations, as stated that was the entire reason they build HIMARS

Did you not see the video? They can literally put two pods on the same truck, and still fit it in a C-130.

In 2006 they could have made the same two pods fit on the same truck. They didn't, because the customer was obsessed with precision fire, not volume fire.

I'm not saying you're a bad person for liking HIMARS, I'm simply pointing out that the space considerations haven't changed, but magically LM can double the firepower.

 

[Kirkhill]

1:50, they contain the fire control electronics. They're integral to the launcher not the pod.

Thanks for that. Appreciated. It clarifies a lot.

....